NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1266267269271272298

Comments

  • Posts: 3,327
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious @MI6HQ - in what way do you think Craig is playing himself? I can understand the criticism that it's not the best way he could have played Bond during the last half of the film, but I'm not sure where the idea that Craig is playing himself comes from.

    I've watched it again, I mean the way he spoke those lines particularly the "I have a brother, his name is Felix Leiter" line before he killed Logan Ash, his delivery of that line, the way he spoke it was not Bond, it's just Craig delivering that line.
    And even some of his lines when he's talking to Safin about "second chance".

    His delivery of lines was very much himself.

    But maybe it's just me perhaps?

    I dunno, having seen Craig in interviews I've never really gotten the sense that him and his onscreen Bond are very similar really. Perhaps it's like when people say actors in certain roles are just playing themselves the longer they play the part... they're not, but usually it's a case of them heightening aspects of their performance that they themselves introduced to the character. With Craig it's even further removed because he's playing a version of his Bond that differs from his performance in other films. It's jarring and perhaps uneven, but for me it's not Craig, nor is it lazy or bad acting.
    echo wrote: »
    Craig allowed his Bond to change throughout the films, which is not something that I can say of any of the other actors, except for maybe Dalton.

    Connery changed too. The Bond of Dr. No/FRWL is very different to the Bond of DAF or NSNA.

    GF/TB are also different, as is YOLT.

    Somewhat true. The Bond of TB and YOLT is a terrible bore really.
    Disagree on TB, I think Connery turns in a brilliant performance there.

    Power to you if you feel that. I can't watch him in it, he comes off as so bored and stiff in many key moments for me. TB and YOLT aren't my favourite Bond films anyway, but Connery's performance is disappointing.

    I think by TB he was playing Bond in a very casual way. Dr. No/FRWL he is the most Fleming, but GF he hits the right blend of Fleming and the cinematic version.

    You could say TB/YOLT he looks the most bored. DAF/NSNA Connery doesn't seem that bored, but more like he is relaxed and having fun with the character - older, wiser, slightly slower.
  • Posts: 4,139
    007HallY wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious @MI6HQ - in what way do you think Craig is playing himself? I can understand the criticism that it's not the best way he could have played Bond during the last half of the film, but I'm not sure where the idea that Craig is playing himself comes from.

    I've watched it again, I mean the way he spoke those lines particularly the "I have a brother, his name is Felix Leiter" line before he killed Logan Ash, his delivery of that line, the way he spoke it was not Bond, it's just Craig delivering that line.
    And even some of his lines when he's talking to Safin about "second chance".

    His delivery of lines was very much himself.

    But maybe it's just me perhaps?

    I dunno, having seen Craig in interviews I've never really gotten the sense that him and his onscreen Bond are very similar really. Perhaps it's like when people say actors in certain roles are just playing themselves the longer they play the part... they're not, but usually it's a case of them heightening aspects of their performance that they themselves introduced to the character. With Craig it's even further removed because he's playing a version of his Bond that differs from his performance in other films. It's jarring and perhaps uneven, but for me it's not Craig, nor is it lazy or bad acting.
    echo wrote: »
    Craig allowed his Bond to change throughout the films, which is not something that I can say of any of the other actors, except for maybe Dalton.

    Connery changed too. The Bond of Dr. No/FRWL is very different to the Bond of DAF or NSNA.

    GF/TB are also different, as is YOLT.

    Somewhat true. The Bond of TB and YOLT is a terrible bore really.
    Disagree on TB, I think Connery turns in a brilliant performance there.

    Power to you if you feel that. I can't watch him in it, he comes off as so bored and stiff in many key moments for me. TB and YOLT aren't my favourite Bond films anyway, but Connery's performance is disappointing.

    I think by TB he was playing Bond in a very casual way. Dr. No/FRWL he is the most Fleming, but GF he hits the right blend of Fleming and the cinematic version.

    You could say TB/YOLT he looks the most bored. DAF/NSNA Connery doesn't seem that bored, but more like he is relaxed and having fun with the character - older, wiser, slightly slower.

    It looks like he's clocked out by TB to me. I really like him in DN-GF. I don't mind his performance in DAF as much, and I actually like the fact that he seems a lot more relaxed/good humoured after Blofeld's 'death' (it reminds me a bit of TMWTGG where he seems a lot more good humoured after returning from being brainwashed).
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 555
    One last "I was in Matera" post from me. Filmed some video of me running around on the Gravina Bridge:
    https://www.instagram.com/tv/CfmW59oJCyx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

    If that link doesn't work, go to @adotgif, if you're super dedicated haha.
    007HallY wrote: »
    As much as I get the criticism that Craig is essentially doing Benoit Blanc during the interrogation scene in NTTD, I've never understood the claim that he's 'playing himself'. It's not even bad acting as such (it's certainly not one note), but arguably a case of mishandled Direction.

    I actually don't mind the idea that Bond went through a bit of a change after leaving the Service. Keep in mind, he's a man who spent his entire adult life being turned into a killer, went through numerous tragedies, and spent a good chunk of his life as a loner. It makes sense he'd no longer have to put that 'mask' he needed as a 00 agent - that cold, stoic attitude a man like that would need just to keep sane in that profession. Craig's Bond is certainly more sarcastic after the PTS which is an element I think worked (ie. 'M, darling!' and 'Who's the Book of Mormon?', 'Has this desk gotten bigger?'). It's a part of his Bond that's always been there, as seen in SP with the 'I think I'll call you C' line, but the fact that this Bond doesn't have to restrain himself as much due to not being in the Service and has more of these lines feels natural and in-character. I actually really enjoyed seeing Craig's Bond and Felix interact in the Jamaica scenes sipping beers together, laughing, telling stories, even doing each other's accents. It felt like these two were genuinely friends. This is where I think that change works best in NTTD. It even works to an extent when Bond tries to appeal to Safin at the end (the ropey dialogue doesn't help, but the idea of this older Bond, a man who has witnessed all kinds of horrific events in his life, trying to appeal to Safin in a 'this is morally wrong' way is interesting).

    But yeah, the interrogation scene is awful, and I do think Craig's performance needed to be reigned in. It would have been cool to have seen him put up that 'mask' again to face Blofeld. The 'die Blofeld, die' is needlessly dramatic and forced too, and the fact that Bond goes from Benoit Blanc to an unhinged killer is strange. Still, it's a Direction/script decision. While Craig probably had a hand in it (I get the sense he took the attitude of 'I want to say more than three words at a time in this film') it's something that could have been ironed out in concept.
    Brilliantly written. There is some in film textual validation of your theory. Blofeld does call his behavior "unusual."
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    The difference between Craig Bond changing and his predecessors is that we’re seeing Craig Bond change to reflect different stages of his life, showing an evolution from beginning to end, whereas the changes we saw with other actors was more about calibrating their performances to the tone of the film the directors were aiming for. For example, we see Connery as depicted by Terence Young to be cold, ruthless and witty, then Guy Hamilton changes him to a more jovial and loquacious character, and then returns to the Terence Young model in TB. With YOLT there’s more of a bored detachment, either reflecting Connery’s mood or deliberately there to contrast with the heightened reality of Lewis Gilbert’s approach. Finally, DAF returns to the GF of a jovial and loquacious Bond but improved with Mankiewicz dialogue.

    All those performances more or less suit the films, but there’s no attempt at trying to present an evolution of character in a linear sense because they’re largely standalone films, made at a time when no one imagined having the films widely accessible at home for repeat viewings, pausing, frame by frame, etc.
  • The difference between Craig Bond changing and his predecessors is that we’re seeing Craig Bond change to reflect different stages of his life, showing an evolution from beginning to end, whereas the changes we saw with other actors was more about calibrating their performances to the tone of the film the directors were aiming for. For example, we see Connery as depicted by Terence Young to be cold, ruthless and witty, then Guy Hamilton changes him to a more jovial and loquacious character, and then returns to the Terence Young model in TB. With YOLT there’s more of a bored detachment, either reflecting Connery’s mood or deliberately there to contrast with the heightened reality of Lewis Gilbert’s approach. Finally, DAF returns to the GF of a jovial and loquacious Bond but improved with Mankiewicz dialogue.

    All those performances more or less suit the films, but there’s no attempt at trying to present an evolution of character in a linear sense because they’re largely standalone films, made at a time when no one imagined having the films widely accessible at home for repeat viewings, pausing, frame by frame, etc.

    I feel that. And it makes intellectual sense to me. But I can tell you, again, that it really didn't feel that way watching them all together. It felt like a totally different guy showed up. And not just post PTS. End-to-end. I wasn't looking over my shoulder..., How did they know I was here??
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    There’s definitely a difference in the PTS, but I think that’s just Bond having dropped his armor like when he was with Vesper in CR, where he’s trying to open up, and then being triggered. The movie is vague on how much time has passed between driving off at the end of SP and when we see them in NTTD, but I’m wagering it’s been at least a whole summer.
  • There’s definitely a difference in the PTS, but I think that’s just Bond having dropped his armor like when he was with Vesper in CR, where he’s trying to open up, and then being triggered. The movie is vague on how much time has passed between driving off at the end of SP and when we see them in NTTD, but I’m wagering it’s been at least a whole summer.

    This is why you've always been among the very best. Great, perfectly within the film's text, analysis!

    I thought about the "dropping the armor" angle, as I had that line directly in my mind, and I legit think that's what Craig is going for. So, maybe we should, indeed, give him props for a considered performance? I can see that, and I think in subsequent, non-in-flight delerium rewatching of NTTD, I will adopt that as my in-head-canon.

    That being said, the CR CraigBond, post armor stripping, also does not act like this guy.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited July 2022 Posts: 8,183
    That being said, the CR CraigBond, post armor stripping, also does not act like this guy.

    I don’t meant to say they’re exact, but the idea of opening up is there, plus his time with Vesper seemed a lot shorter. Maybe a few weeks, and we’re only just seeing him open up himself for the first time to someone. Like when at the beach he’s talking about needing to change his lifestyle and being honest about how he’s not sure where to go from there.

    With him in NTTD, you’re seeing a much older character having gone through so much in life. He’s not going to be the same guy he was with Vesper. Even with Madeleine in those moments she still sensed that he was closing a part of himself, probably because there’s that part of being a 00 that’s difficult to shake off no matter how hard he tries to open himself up “you’re looking over your shoulder”. The moment he gets a hint of betrayal is both his 00 instincts and triggered emotions erupting and colliding.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,383
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious @MI6HQ - in what way do you think Craig is playing himself? I can understand the criticism that it's not the best way he could have played Bond during the last half of the film, but I'm not sure where the idea that Craig is playing himself comes from.

    I've watched it again, I mean the way he spoke those lines particularly the "I have a brother, his name is Felix Leiter" line before he killed Logan Ash, his delivery of that line, the way he spoke it was not Bond, it's just Craig delivering that line.
    And even some of his lines when he's talking to Safin about "second chance".

    His delivery of lines was very much himself.

    But maybe it's just me perhaps?

    Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Craig still sounds like Bond in NTTD. Only in some scenes, he doesn't sound or behave like the Bond we were introduced to. For example, him talking to Blofeld and waving his hand. We were introduced to a laconic Bond(like Bond is usually is, anyway)so for him to be loquacious in NTTD is quite distant.

    I always liked it when Craig would surprise me with something new: like the little wave at the funeral in Spectre. I thought it was great that he wasn't always repeating himself.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious @MI6HQ - in what way do you think Craig is playing himself? I can understand the criticism that it's not the best way he could have played Bond during the last half of the film, but I'm not sure where the idea that Craig is playing himself comes from.

    I've watched it again, I mean the way he spoke those lines particularly the "I have a brother, his name is Felix Leiter" line before he killed Logan Ash, his delivery of that line, the way he spoke it was not Bond, it's just Craig delivering that line.
    And even some of his lines when he's talking to Safin about "second chance".

    His delivery of lines was very much himself.

    But maybe it's just me perhaps?

    Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Craig still sounds like Bond in NTTD. Only in some scenes, he doesn't sound or behave like the Bond we were introduced to. For example, him talking to Blofeld and waving his hand. We were introduced to a laconic Bond(like Bond is usually is, anyway)so for him to be loquacious in NTTD is quite distant.

    I always liked it when Craig would surprise me with something new: like the little wave at the funeral in Spectre. I thought it was great that he wasn't always repeating himself.

    Wonderful little moment. Or "No, stay!" at the clinic. Nice to see have a moment here and there without intense emotional turmoil!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Which is so ironic that the film tried to do this whole reveal of Blofeld and the killing of Bond’s foster parent, but Bond doesn’t all at seem that emotionally troubled as he did in the other films because Craig is committed to playing up the classic Bond.

    That’s just another aspect to why SP feels so disjointed. It’s like Craig wasn’t on the same wavelength of the filmmakers.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I'm genuinely curious @MI6HQ - in what way do you think Craig is playing himself? I can understand the criticism that it's not the best way he could have played Bond during the last half of the film, but I'm not sure where the idea that Craig is playing himself comes from.

    I've watched it again, I mean the way he spoke those lines particularly the "I have a brother, his name is Felix Leiter" line before he killed Logan Ash, his delivery of that line, the way he spoke it was not Bond, it's just Craig delivering that line.
    And even some of his lines when he's talking to Safin about "second chance".

    His delivery of lines was very much himself.

    But maybe it's just me perhaps?

    Yeah, I know what you mean. But I think Craig still sounds like Bond in NTTD. Only in some scenes, he doesn't sound or behave like the Bond we were introduced to. For example, him talking to Blofeld and waving his hand. We were introduced to a laconic Bond(like Bond is usually is, anyway)so for him to be loquacious in NTTD is quite distant.

    I always liked it when Craig would surprise me with something new: like the little wave at the funeral in Spectre. I thought it was great that he wasn't always repeating himself.

    Yeah, something as subtle as that, is always cool. I liked the SP wave too. Just like the wink in SF, when he arrives to save M from Silva during the inquiry, or his smile in CR, after him and Vesper finish their repartee on the train. Like you said earlier, which I agree. Campbell and Mendes get Bond.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited July 2022 Posts: 7,021
    I may be the only guy on Earth who loves the Blofeld scene in NTTD. I know what people mean about Craig's performance, but he is talking to a guy with whom he has a very strange relationship, and he needs something from him, so he's making a somewhat awkward sales pitch. And all the while they're trying to get under each other's skin. Bond's back-handed and false admiration is wonderful, and Blofeld's bravado as he deflects it is even better.

    I think Waltz is excellent here, which may elevate my feelings about Craig's side of it, but I really don't expect him to talk to Ernst the way he'd talk to Nomi or M or Felix. People are exaggerating a bit on the Knives Out comparison. It's really the one set of hand gestures that may remind one of that. (The one part I do find odd is how Bond mutters the word "die" before the famous YOLT reference. But if it's written that he has to say "die" under his breath, I know of no good way that could have been done.

    I too love the Blofeld scene. I remember @4EverBonded enjoyed it as well.

    What I particularly love about it is what you mention: how Bond and Blofeld are sarcastically cordial to each other (a "sales pitch" is a great way of describing the scene). I remember finding the lines "happy birthday by the way" and "a celebration of all that is Ernst Stavro Blofeld" exhilarating on my first watch, both in terms of dialogue and delivery. Also, I don't find Craig's acting out of place. To me, his performance in that scene and the film as a whole is a continuation of what he started in Spectre, a more relaxed, more charismatic, but still human take on Bond that is tinged with latent danger. I always associate it with another generally maligned performance I love --Connery in DAF-- because I think both achieve a sort of deadly nonchalance that is incredibly exciting to watch.

    Most of the time, Waltz's performance in Spectre and NTTD displays an undercurrent of cruelty and sadism in such a relaxed way that it makes him seem more threatening. His surface joviality and calmness emphasizes his cruelty by contrast. I think it also provides a welcome touch of black comedy that emphasizes the unusual nature of the situation-- a secret agent confronting a criminal mastermind after having had several deadly run-ins with his seemingly omnipotent, omnipresent organization. Blofeld, a man enthralled and engrossed by himself, a man with a deranged sense of self-importance, and Bond, who at this point is so accustomed to confronting a world of depravity and violence, that he takes it in stride. The whole thing is strange, rarefied, unrealistic, baroque, in a good way.

    I find Craig works in sync with Waltz. I agree with your point that Bond isn't going to act the exact same way around every character. He (and the directors and other people who contributed to shaping his performance) probably thought there was something to having Craig and Waltz engage with each other through mocking politeness. Waltz already was an expert at that style of acting at the time of Spectre, and as far as I'm concerned, in that film, Craig showed he was every bit as capable. There had been shades of that quality in his previous performances, but in Bond's scenes with Blofeld, the disconnect between surface cordiality and masked rage is greater than ever before. Apparently, Craig and Waltz's interplay doesn't work for most people, but I get what they were going for, I think they totally succeeded at it, and I greatly enjoy it.

    I don't even have any problem with Bond's delivery of the word "die" in NTTD. By saying it in a near whisper, it sounds to me like he's trying to indulge as lightly as possible in the anger he feels at the moment, while still trying to remain in control of himself.

    It's fantastic stuff.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Which is so ironic that the film tried to do this whole reveal of Blofeld and the killing of Bond’s foster parent, but Bond doesn’t all at seem that emotionally troubled as he did in the other films because Craig is committed to playing up the classic Bond.

    That’s just another aspect to why SP feels so disjointed. It’s like Craig wasn’t on the same wavelength of the filmmakers.

    Oh, I don't think so. Craig shows the requisite shock and horror and fear upon seeing Oberhauser leading a frightening criminal organization. But after living with that knowledge for a few days, I don't see why he should be thrust into fresh turmoil upon his learning that a guy he doesn't like anyway killed a guy he already knew was dead, twenty years before. And he had already figured that out before Blofeld told him. Going back into QOS-mode would have been inappropriate.

    Especially with this villain. Waltz's Blofeld clearly thrives on Bond's misery, and he constantly goads him and puffs himself up as the "author of all his pain" to get an emotional reaction out of Bond. Of course Bond isn't going to give him that. He brushes most of it off with a "living well is the best revenge" attitude that is supposed to (and does) frustrate Blofeld, whose motto seems to be "revenge is the best revenge". ("Blow up my base, will you? Maybe I'll blow up YOUR base!") It's also exactly what I should expect from James Bond after the arc of QOS.

    Of course, Blofeld does get his reaction once, when showing Madeleine the death of her father, and after Bond is enraged, Blofeld seems satisfied to knock him out and take him to his execution.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I find Craig works in sync with Waltz. I agree with your point that Bond isn't going to act the exact same way around every character. He (and the directors and other people who contributed to shaping his performance) probably thought there was something to having Craig and Waltz engage with each other through mocking politeness. Waltz already was an expert at that style of acting at the time of Spectre, and as far as I'm concerned, in that film, Craig showed he was every bit as capable. There had been shades of that quality in his previous performances, but in Bond's scenes with Blofeld, the disconnect between surface cordiality and masked rage is greater than ever before. Apparently, Craig and Waltz's interplay doesn't work for most people, but I get what they were going for, I think they totally succeeded at it, and I greatly enjoy it.

    It's fantastic stuff.

    Great comment, the whole thing. Waltz actually gave me my favorite villain moment ever, when he finally cracks himself up a bit saying, "I've really put you through it, haven't I?" The exchange you referred to ("Everything that is Ernst Stavro Blofeld", "Cuba was a disappointment") is probably next on the list, followed by a bunch of Sanchez.

    I went from disliking to tolerating to celebrating the deeply unpopular backstory of Waltz's Blofeld because of the way it facilitated this wonderful dynamic between him and Craig's Bond.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    He’s shocked for a moment when finding out Blofeld killed his own father, but only a few seconds later Bond starts making cracks of Blofeld’s name and the use of “cuckoo”. I never get any sense for the rest of the film that Bond has a personal score to settle with Blofeld. So much so that he decides not to kill him because it didn’t seem worth it.

    The only time it feels like Blofeld truly gets under Bond’s skin is in the prison in NTTD.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    He’s shocked for a moment when finding out Blofeld killed his own father, but only a few seconds later Bond starts making cracks of Blofeld’s name and the use of “cuckoo”. I never get any sense for the rest of the film that Bond has a personal score to settle with Blofeld. So much so that he decides not to kill him because it didn’t seem worth it.

    The only time it feels like Blofeld truly gets under Bond’s skin is in the prison in NTTD.

    I agree with this, and I also agree with those who say Craig's performance is off in the Blofeld scene in NTTD. I found it jarring on first watch and it still sticks out to me even now.

    Pretty much the whole Blofeld-arc in the Craig era was well-intentioned but misjudged, I feel. The only time he felt like an intimidating presence was when we could hear him but not see him, like in the PTS of NTTD or during the Cuba party sequence.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,711
    He’s shocked for a moment when finding out Blofeld killed his own father, but only a few seconds later Bond starts making cracks of Blofeld’s name and the use of “cuckoo”. I never get any sense for the rest of the film that Bond has a personal score to settle with Blofeld. So much so that he decides not to kill him because it didn’t seem worth it.

    The only time it feels like Blofeld truly gets under Bond’s skin is in the prison in NTTD.

    Well, again, I'm not sure why he would be shocked by that, not in some QOS kind of turmoil way, for the reasons I outlined above.

    He doesn't not kill Blofeld because it's "not worth it". The conclusion was set up in the conversations with Madeleine before, about "stopping" his current life, and obviously the unloading of the gun is foreshadowing. It would have been downright bizarre for Bond to kill Blofeld after that.

    And telling Blofeld (who is asking Bond to "finish it") that he has "something better to do", and letting him see that once again Bond is unfazed by Blofeld's effort, and that he saved himself AND the girl, is kind of the point. More of the "living well is the best revenge" ethos he utilizes against Blofeld. Killing him would have been completely out of step with everything the movie had been doing with Madeleine and Blofeld!

    Bond also shows plenty of anger at Blofeld, but not to his face. The way he looks at the helicopter is pretty vicious.
  • Posts: 3,327
    He’s shocked for a moment when finding out Blofeld killed his own father, but only a few seconds later Bond starts making cracks of Blofeld’s name and the use of “cuckoo”. I never get any sense for the rest of the film that Bond has a personal score to settle with Blofeld. So much so that he decides not to kill him because it didn’t seem worth it.

    The only time it feels like Blofeld truly gets under Bond’s skin is in the prison in NTTD.

    Well, again, I'm not sure why he would be shocked by that, not in some QOS kind of turmoil way, for the reasons I outlined above.

    He doesn't not kill Blofeld because it's "not worth it". The conclusion was set up in the conversations with Madeleine before, about "stopping" his current life, and obviously the unloading of the gun is foreshadowing. It would have been downright bizarre for Bond to kill Blofeld after that.

    And telling Blofeld (who is asking Bond to "finish it") that he has "something better to do", and letting him see that once again Bond is unfazed by Blofeld's effort, and that he saved himself AND the girl, is kind of the point. More of the "living well is the best revenge" ethos he utilizes against Blofeld. Killing him would have been completely out of step with everything the movie had been doing with Madeleine and Blofeld!

    Bond also shows plenty of anger at Blofeld, but not to his face. The way he looks at the helicopter is pretty vicious.

    Having Blofeld instead of Safin, the payoff at the end would have had far more impact when Bond finally kills him.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited July 2022 Posts: 693
    The Bond-Blofeld rivalry fell flat because it was based on a retcon as opposed to something that was built up from the start. Blofeld has no presence in CR-SF, nor is there anything which suggests that the events of these movies were somehow contrived by him. The producers threw Blofeld in at the end of Craig's tenure and then tried to convince the audience that everything that happened previously was due to him and his past with Bond.

    His quote, "We crossed paths so many times yet you never saw me" was a cheat, a cover-up for the fact that CR-SF were clearly not made with Blofeld in mind. The producers should have just kept Quantum as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.
  • Posts: 463
    slide_99 wrote: »
    His quote, "We crossed paths so many times yet you never saw me" was a cheat, a cover-up for the fact that CR-SF were clearly not made with Blofeld in mind. The producers should have just kept Quantum as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.

    My friends have tried to say that it strengthens Silva in SF and explains how he was able to fund his operations, even though Severine already did this and all Blofeld does is name drop “Silva” once or twice and then show him that silly production still in MI6, which doesn’t do a damn thing other than diminish Silva’s own revenge plot.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The producers should have just kept Quantum as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.
    All in all, yes, I think this might've been a better way to go.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited July 2022 Posts: 693
    CrzChris4 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    His quote, "We crossed paths so many times yet you never saw me" was a cheat, a cover-up for the fact that CR-SF were clearly not made with Blofeld in mind. The producers should have just kept Quantum as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.

    My friends have tried to say that it strengthens Silva in SF and explains how he was able to fund his operations, even though Severine already did this and all Blofeld does is name drop “Silva” once or twice and then show him that silly production still in MI6, which doesn’t do a damn thing other than diminish Silva’s own revenge plot.

    Yeah, a guy like Silva didn't need big organizational backing to build an army. Paul LeRoux, a computer programming genius, ran a global drug and mercenary empire from his apartment in the Philllippines.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,152
    The SP retcon didn't work - if anything, it actually undermined Craig's earlier films. In my head, it's Blofeld lying to twist the knife, but CraigBond doesn't fall for it and responds to the 'It was always me...' line with 'Yeah, right' and a look of derision. ;)
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,711
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Bond-Blofeld rivalry fell flat because it was based on a retcon as opposed to something that was built up from the start. Blofeld has no presence in CR-SF, nor is there anything which suggests that the events of these movies were somehow contrived by him. The producers threw Blofeld in at the end of Craig's tenure and then tried to convince the audience that everything that happened previously was due to him and his past with Bond.

    His quote, "We crossed paths so many times yet you never saw me" was a cheat, a cover-up for the fact that CR-SF were clearly not made with Blofeld in mind. The producers should have just kept Quant as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.

    Well, it's barely a retcon at all. CR and QOS are already linked, and Spectre is a sequel to those films. It's also very clear that Le Chiffre, Greene, and Mr White are all subordinate figures to someone or something. Plenty of people wondered what was coming next with all that stuff after QOS, so there was a clear gap to be filled, if the producers so wished. Skyfall, yeah, that's a retcon. But it's not nuts to think Silva, doing his Spectre-like work, would be part of Spectre. That the man who visited Madeleine was Lyutsifer Safin was also a retcon. Who cares?

    They could have saved Spectre for Bond #7, I certainly agree, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of fans out there who only really like 2 of the last 9 Bond movies, and feel that Blofeld was never better than when he was a camp Transylvanian accent petting a cat off-screen. The producers can not and should not cater to these folks. Most of them will probably not love Bond #7 all that much and would probably not like most anything that would be done with Spectre in the 21st century.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The Bond-Blofeld rivalry fell flat because it was based on a retcon as opposed to something that was built up from the start. Blofeld has no presence in CR-SF, nor is there anything which suggests that the events of these movies were somehow contrived by him. The producers threw Blofeld in at the end of Craig's tenure and then tried to convince the audience that everything that happened previously was due to him and his past with Bond.

    His quote, "We crossed paths so many times yet you never saw me" was a cheat, a cover-up for the fact that CR-SF were clearly not made with Blofeld in mind. The producers should have just kept Quant as the adversary of the Craig era, then reintroduced Spectre for Bond #7.

    Well, it's barely a retcon at all. CR and QOS are already linked, and Spectre is a sequel to those films. It's also very clear that Le Chiffre, Greene, and Mr White are all subordinate figures to someone or something. Plenty of people wondered what was coming next with all that stuff after QOS, so there was a clear gap to be filled, if the producers so wished. Skyfall, yeah, that's a retcon. But it's not nuts to think Silva, doing his Spectre-like work, would be part of Spectre. That the man who visited Madeleine was Lyutsifer Safin was also a retcon. Who cares?

    They could have saved Spectre for Bond #7, I certainly agree, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of fans out there who only really like 2 of the last 9 Bond movies, and feel that Blofeld was never better than when he was a camp Transylvanian accent petting a cat off-screen. The producers can not and should not cater to these folks. Most of them will probably not love Bond #7 all that much and would probably not like most anything that would be done with Spectre in the 21st century.

    Back in the days of CR/QOS I thought it was clear that Mr. White was going to be the main villain of the Craig era, the guy who's always lurking in the shadows and perpetually escaping Bond in a cat-and-mouse game. They had a good foil for Bond in him but they sidelined him with Waltz-Blofeld.

    Specter would have worked better with Mr. White as the villain. They could've done the same basic plot with him trying to control global surveillance while Bond falls in love with his daughter. That would have been a strong foundation for character development and conflict, with Bond having to choose between killing Mr. White- the guy who was actually responsible for changing his life, not Blofeld- and having his daughter as a love interest.

    Unfortunately it feels like they just wanted to make Skyfall 2 instead of Bond 24, so they haphazardly throw Blofeld into the continuity and gave him a lame backstory that somewhat mirrored Silva's.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2022 Posts: 16,383
    He’s shocked for a moment when finding out Blofeld killed his own father, but only a few seconds later Bond starts making cracks of Blofeld’s name and the use of “cuckoo”. I never get any sense for the rest of the film that Bond has a personal score to settle with Blofeld. So much so that he decides not to kill him because it didn’t seem worth it.

    The only time it feels like Blofeld truly gets under Bond’s skin is in the prison in NTTD.

    That's a good observation. I guess the point of the film is that Blofeld is obsessed with the past, but Bond isn't - the only time Blofeld ever makes him truly angry is when he tries to take away Bond's future i.e. Madeline.

    I guess it's kind of an interesting switcheroo: traditionally Bond has always been the one who is associated with the past and status quo, with his old suit and oak panelled drawing rooms, whereas the modernist-suited villains in their high tech lairs usually represent the threat of the future.

    Venutius wrote: »
    The SP retcon didn't work - if anything, it actually undermined Craig's earlier films. In my head, it's Blofeld lying to twist the knife, but CraigBond doesn't fall for it and responds to the 'It was always me...' line with 'Yeah, right' and a look of derision. ;)

    Yeah I like that :)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,297
    It's pretty clear that Eon was going for the '60s SPECTRE-like gradual presence of DN-FRWL-TB as far back as CR, but with colors (White, Greene, Slate, even Silva, etc.) in the place of numbers. But it was kept vague enough as an "organization."

    Where Eon really messed up was with Quantum of Solace, in naming the organization. Had they not, it could have been Spectre all along.

    By SP, when they finally had the rights, a la TB, they could have kept Blofeld as a shadowy voice and had a separate Oberhauser as the main villain, saving the reveal of Blofeld for NTTD.

    I didn't need more backstory for Bond in SP after SF, but apparently Mendes did. And NTTD could have been Bond vs. Blofeld with their backstory being simply that Bond ruined his plans in the past.

    Say it with me, again: this is all Mendes' fault.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,711
    Is there really so much backstory in those movies?

    Bond's parents died in a climbing accident. He had a house called Skyfall with a groundskeeper. He stayed with a guy called Oberhauser, whose son was a jerk. That's it, right?

    Isn't about half of that from Fleming, and didn't Fleming give a whole bunch of other info? And didn't Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies throw in some one-off backstory for the purpose of those plots?

    The complaints about excessive backstory in the Mendes films reminds me of the complaints about how much taxation of trade routes is discussed in The Phantom Menace. In reality, it's like a minute, max. There are reasons one might not like TPM, SP, or SF, but these seem like odd nits to pick.
  • Posts: 4,139
    I actually thought elements of Bond's past were handled very well in SF. Beyond taking M to Skyfall his past isn't directly tied into the narrative. There's also much that is unsaid by Bond/the film. It reminded me a lot of how GE handled this aspect of the character.

    Personally, I think Bond's past being tied into the actual film should be used with caution. With SP I didn't feel Bond showed any familiarity with Blofeld anyway, and the foster brother subplot didn't add anything to the story. I do, however, appreciate subplots such as the Paris Carver relationship in TND, and think this is a case where something like that does work well.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,297
    The backstory worked better for me in GE than in SF...besides, it's just a line in GE. I never bought that Bond was an heir to a country estate. That felt like Mendes overreach.

    The half of SP that worked was again Fleming, Oberhauser, Sr. It really didn't need to be tied into Blofeld. And lifting Oberhauser out of the other half of the OP story--in essence, giving Oberhauser, Jr. Smythe's guilty backstory--just felt weird.

    These are the aspects of the Craig era that I am happy to leave behind.
Sign In or Register to comment.